Abstract

IMPORTANCE COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. OBJECTIVE To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. DATA SOURCES From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. RESULTS Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

Abstract

Convalescent plasma is a suggested treatment for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but its efficacy is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of convalescent plasma is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with Covid-19.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched randomized controlled trials investigating the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to October 17(th), 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021284861. Of the 8874 studies identified in the initial search, sixteen trials comprising 16 317 patients with Covid-19 were included. In the overall population, the all-cause mortality was 23.8% (2025 of 8524) with convalescent plasma and 24.4% (1903 of 7769) with standard of care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04) (high-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality did not differ in the subgroups of noncritically ill (21.7% [1288 of 5929] vs. 22.4% [1320 of 5882]) and critically ill (36.9% [518 of 1404] vs. 36.4% [455 of 1247]) patients with Covid-19. The use of convalescent plasma in patients who tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline was not associated with significantly improved survival (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.02). In the overall study population, initiation of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07), time to clinical improvement (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.30), and time to discharge (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02) were similar between the two groups. In patients with Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, as compared with control, was not associated with lower all-cause mortality or improved disease progression, irrespective of disease severity and baseline antibody status. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021284861).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma treatment for severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical improvement and mortality risk of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases for the randomized controlled studies about convalescent plasma therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes were clinical improvement and mortality risk of severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients that were therapied by convalescent plasma. RESULTS A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4543 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to control, no significant difference was observed for either clinical improvement (6 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, p = 0.16, moderate certainty) or mortality risk (14 studies, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03, p= 0.18, low certainty) in patients of convalescent plasma therapy group. CONCLUSION Convalescent plasma did not increase the clinical improvement or reduce the mortality risk in the severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND When the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began, no uniform treatment and care strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients were yet available. National and international treatment recommendations were formulated under time pressure, initially on the basis of indirect evidence from the treatment of similar diseases. In this article, we give an overview of the content, currency, and methodological quality of the existing national and international guidelines, with special attention to the care of critically ill patients. METHODS Guidelines were identified by a comprehensive search, the included guidelines were assessed in standardized fashion with the AGREE II guideline assessment instrument and according to the AMWF rulebook criteria, and the core recommendations of the included and methodologically high-quality guidelines were compared. RESULTS Nine of the 97 guidelines that were identified fulfilled the content criteria for inclusion, and 6 of these fulfilled the qualitative criteria; these 6 guidelines still differed, however, in the topics to which they devoted the most attention, as well as in their methodological quality and currency. The treatment strategies for patients with severe respiratory failure (lung-protective ventilation strategies and rescue measures) deviated little from established standards. Uniform recommendations were made, among other things, for the administration of dexamethasone, which was recommended in all of the guidelines for patients requiring oxygen treatment, as well as for antithrombotic drug prophylaxis and for the prone positioning of ventilated patients. Many recommendations were based on insufficient evidence, and some were contradictory, e.g., those regarding antibiotic treatment or the choice between high-flow oxygen administration via nasal canula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CONCLUSION The consultation of multiple high-quality international guidelines and guideline recommendations shared in online portals such as MagicApp are helpful sources of information for clinicians. In view of the continuing lack of strong evidence, further research on intensive care treatments is needed (aspects of ventilation, positioning therapy, and the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]).

Abstract

PURPOSE To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19. METHODS This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores. RESULTS Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events. CONCLUSION Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes. REGISTRATION PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies, particularly those preventing interaction between the viral spike receptor-binding domain and the host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, may prevent viral entry into host cells and disease progression. METHODS We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and meta-regression of RCTs to evaluate the benefit of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. The primary outcome was 28-30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation and ICU admission. Data sources were PubMed, Embase, MedRxiv, and the Cochrane library on July 2, 2021. RESULTS We identified 17 RCTs that recruited 15 587 patients with 8027 (51.5%) allocated to receive convalescent plasma. Convalescent plasma use was not associated with a mortality benefit (24.7% vs 25.5%; odds ratio [OR]=0.94 [0.85-1.04]; P=0.23; I(2)=4%; TSA adjusted confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.05), or reduction in need for mechanical ventilation (15.7% vs 15.4%; OR=1.01 [0.92-1.11]; P=0.82; I(2)=0%; TSA adjusted CI, 0.91-1.13), or ICU admission (22.4% vs 16.7%; OR=0.80 [0.21-3.09]; P=0.75; I(2)=63%; TSA adjusted CI, 0.0-196.05). Meta-regression did not reveal association with titre of convalescent plasma, timing of administration, or risk of death and treatment effect (P>0.05). Risk of bias was high in most studies. CONCLUSIONS In patients with COVID-19, there was no clear mortality benefit associated with convalescent plasma treatment. In patients with mild disease, convalescent plasma did not prevent either the need for mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION CRD42021234201 (PROSPERO).

Abstract

AIMS: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. RESULTS A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. CONCLUSION Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events. RESULTS Five RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09-3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47-1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48-1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS In comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Exact information about the efficacy of various medications proposed by regulatory bodies in children with COVID-19 is limited due to the lack of controlled trials in the existing literature. METHODS Different electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE CENTRAL, LitCovid, medRxiv, and bioRxiv) were searched for articles describing the management of COVID-19 cases in children with 18 shortlisted medications. Prospective/retrospective studies/case series (with at least 20 cases) reporting COVID-19 in patients aged ≤14 years were searched to collect information regarding clinical details and severity of participants, medications used, and outcome. The pooled estimate of these parameters across studies was performed using a random-effect or fixed-effect meta-analysis depending on the degree of heterogeneity. RESULTS From a total of 5794 records, 97 studies/case series (8243 patients) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review. A total of 21% children received at least one medication specifically used for COVID-19. While antivirals were used in 15.3% of children, remedesivir was the most commonly used antiviral drug in 6.2% of included children without many reports of serious adverse effects. There was a more prevalent use of anti-inflammatory medications including corticosteroids (27.8%, P = 0.01). Total 91% of severe cases described in literature in children received some anti-inflammatory medications. Among them, corticosteroids (17%) and Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) (17.5%) were the most predominant followed by interferon (4.2%), tocilizumab (1.5%), and anakinra (0.8%). The most predominant therapy among multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) cases were IVIG (81%), followed by aspirin (67%), corticosteroids (64%), inotropes (62%), and anticoagulation (56%, mostly low molecular weight heparin, LMWH). Overall mortality was only 1.3%, but when we analyzed separately including only cases with moderate and severe disease, the mortality rate was 4.6%. CONCLUSION Among pharmacological modalities, anti-inflammatory agents like corticosteroids and antivirals like remdesivir have the most promising evidence for severe cases of pediatric COVID-19. Intravenous immunoglobulin and other anti-inflammatory/immunomodulatory agents like anakinra, aspirin, and anticoagulants have important therapeutic role in cases with MIS-C. Most of the mild cases recover with conservative treatment only.

Abstract

Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.